[TheOtherHobbes]

Unlike en-passant and castling, pinning and discovered checks are consequences of lower-level rules.

At the "Is this move legal?" level, they don't need unique rules of its own if the lower-level rules are specified correctly.

[JohnKemeny]

3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check.

[333c]

That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).

[anamexis]

The only way to put yourself in check is by moving.

[yifanl]

The only action you can ever take in chess is moving.

[PowerElectronix]

You can resign, too.

[thejokeisonme]

You can put yourself in check by moving the king. That has nothing to do with pinning. Adding a rule for pinning is redundant.

[anamexis]

It isn’t an added rule for pinning. It’s the only rule about putting yourself in check.

[333c]

Did you mean putting your opponent in check? In chess, you are not allowed to put yourself in check.

[anamexis]

You said “ That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).” My point is that there are no other means.

[333c]

I was replying to a comment quoting an official rule saying "no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check."

I was pointing out that that specific rule (read to mean that moving a piece pinned against a king is not allow) is not strictly necessary. Putting oneself in check is not allowed regardless of whether it's because you moved a piece that was pinned against your king or moved your king directly into the line of sight of an opponent's piece. These are the different "means."

As a sibling comment points out, "The only action you can ever take in chess is moving," so it's not particularly meaningful to say that the only way to put yourself in check is by moving.